New Rules (with apologies to Bill Maher)

[Phred]

New rule... I'd like to see these never used again.

 

1) Just because someone questions the mission the troops are on does not mean they:

 

a) are unpatriotic

b) do not support the soldiers themselves

c) are unAmerican

 

 

2) When someone questions a candidate's credentials or anything else about a candidate it is not a valid response to say:

 

But what about "some other candidate?"

 

This is a Tu quoque argument or "you too" which is a logical fallacy. Because an error is still an error.

 

Saying that Sarah Palin is inexperienced and not qualified to be Vice President is an opinion. To meet this with "But what about Barack Obama's inexperience" does not invalidate Palin's inexperience as she's still inexperienced by this argument.

[Zelda]

New rule... I'd like to see these never used again.

 

1) Just because someone questions the mission the troops are on does not mean they:

 

a) are unpatriotic

b) do not support the soldiers themselves

c) are unAmerican

 

 

2) When someone questions a candidate's credentials or anything else about a candidate it is not a valid response to say:

 

But what about "some other candidate?"

 

This is a Tu quoque argument or "you too" which is a logical fallacy. Because an error is still an error.

 

Saying that Sarah Palin is inexperienced and not qualified to be Vice President is an opinion. To meet this with "But what about Barack Obama's inexperience" does not invalidate Palin's inexperience as she's still inexperienced by this argument.

 

Agreed on all points.

 

However, after answering the question of Sarah Palin's credentials, whether agreement is reached or not, I still think its okay to ask, "Now can we discuss the credentials of [insert candidate]?"

[Michele B]

New rule... I'd like to see these never used again.

 

1) Just because someone questions the mission the troops are on does not mean they:

 

a) are unpatriotic

b) do not support the soldiers themselves

c) are unAmerican

 

 

2) When someone questions a candidate's credentials or anything else about a candidate it is not a valid response to say:

 

But what about "some other candidate?"

 

This is a Tu quoque argument or "you too" which is a logical fallacy. Because an error is still an error.

 

Saying that Sarah Palin is inexperienced and not qualified to be Vice President is an opinion. To meet this with "But what about Barack Obama's inexperience" does not invalidate Palin's inexperience as she's still inexperienced by this argument.

 

#1 agreed:)

#2 agreed :)

 

But ;)

If I said I am voting for Obama AND I think Sarah Palin is inexperienced, and you asked "But what about Barack Obama's inexperience," it would not "invalidate Palin's inexperience," but it would be a legitimate question in that conversation. Because you would be asking me why does her inexperience bother me but not his.

[pqr]

New rule... I'd like to see these never used again.

 

1) Just because someone questions the mission the troops are on does not mean they:

 

a) are unpatriotic

b) do not support the soldiers themselves

c) are unAmerican

 

 

2) When someone questions a candidate's credentials or anything else about a candidate it is not a valid response to say:

 

But what about "some other candidate?"

 

This is a Tu quoque argument or "you too" which is a logical fallacy. Because an error is still an error.

 

Saying that Sarah Palin is inexperienced and not qualified to be Vice President is an opinion. To meet this with "But what about Barack Obama's inexperience" does not invalidate Palin's inexperience as she's still inexperienced by this argument.

 

No! (I would not like to see rule 1)

 

When our boys (and girls) are putting their lives on the line and some one makes a statement questioning their role and mission there are times when it sure as "H.E. double toothpicks" can be unsupportive, unpatriotic and unAmerican. Not always, but sometimes, and you can not make a blanket statement such as you made above.

 

However, let's agree that when the following comments were made they were unpatriotic, they did not support the troops and they are unAmerican.

 

"...this was not an action...this was not...first they tried to say it was an IED, there was no IED involved in this. This was troops, they were so stressed out, they went into houses and killed children, women and children."-Murtha (before the courts martial which exonerates the troops)

 

"killed innocent civilians in cold blood."-Murtha (same as above)

 

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs." –Kerry

 

"raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."-Kerry (on VietNam)

 

The above two individuals had served and knew better than to make such comments.

 

1. They were not true

2. It is undeniable that comments like the above give aid and comfort to our enemies. This is certainly unpatriotic.

 

In time of war it is difficult to oppose a war while supporting the troops, this I understand, but the above individuals crossed the line.

 

Regarding Palin and your argument. If one wants to say that her qualifications are little different from those of Obama, some might give you that, but she is not running for the presidency and he is.

 

If the person questioning her credentials is a libertarian or even a member of the Green Party (assuming, and I really do not know if this is true, that their candidate's pedigree is beyond question) then your argument may hold true, but it would be unnecessary. If the person is a democrat then it is being disingenuous to make that argument.

 

So regarding your second rule......No, I would not like to see it.

 

Trying to set the rules so that the obvious weaknesses of your candidate are somehow out of bounds is... well let's leave it at that.

 

I am not an full adherent to Decatur's line "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." but if the issue is in doubt I will always err on the side of my country. That I think is patriotic and American. To do otherwise would be....otherwise.

[Michele B]

"...this was not an action...this was not...first they tried to say it was an IED, there was no IED involved in this. This was troops, they were so stressed out, they went into houses and killed children, women and children."-Murtha (before the courts martial which exonerates the troops)

 

"killed innocent civilians in cold blood."-Murtha (same as above)

 

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs." –Kerry

 

"raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."-Kerry (on VietNam)

 

 

 

I find the above statements deplorable, but they are statements, statements with a very sharp political ax to grind. I think there may be a distinction between political ax grinding and someone asking "were we right?" or something similar.

[Mom to Aly]

No! (I would not like to see rule 1)

 

When our boys (and girls) are putting their lives on the line and some one makes a statement questioning their role and mission there are times when it sure as "H.E. double toothpicks" can be unsupportive, unpatriotic and unAmerican. Not always, but sometimes, and you can not make a blanket statement such as you made above.

 

 

I completely disagree! I am absolutely and completely against the war in Iraq! I think we went in, rather Bush sent troops in, with complete disinformation he created, with no real reason other than he wanted to do if for "daddy", we should never have gone in, it is a horrible war, and all we have done is kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and lose thousands of innocent lives ourselves!

 

That said--I completely and absolutely feel for and support our troops, want them back as soon as possible, and pray for their safety every single day. I know that I am not unpatriotic or un-American or unsupportive of the soldiers; I am unsupportive of the war itself, wish it had never happened, and want it over as soon as possible.

 

That said--Phred, what a brave and wonderful post--I commend your new rules, and will try to stick to them! I think we need a new butt kicking smilie for when we forget things we need to do--any smilie creators out there? ;)

[pqr]

I completely disagree! I am absolutely and completely against the war in Iraq! ...

 

That said--I completely and absolutely feel for and support our troops, want them back as soon as possible, and pray for their safety every single day. I know that I am not unpatriotic or un-American or unsupportive of the soldiers; I am unsupportive of the war itself, wish it had never happened, and want it over as soon as possible.

 

 

Mom,

 

I never said you are unpatriotic nor that those who oppose the war are. I said, regarding some comments, that they "can be unsupportive, unpatriotic and unAmerican. Not always, but sometimes, and you can not make a blanket statement"

 

Blanket statements rarely fit. In this case they certainly do not as the quotes attempted to show.

[TXMomof4]

This post was absolutely dead on. Please read it.

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=525485&postcount=44

 

That is all.

[Phred]

In regards to rule #2. No matter what you say about it being a rule to make my candidate fare better... it's not. It's pointing out that it's a debating tactic that is ... incorrect. Let me use a different example.

 

If I point out that you have a black widow spider on your forehead it would do you no good to look at me and say that I have one too. You would still have the problem of a poisonous arthropod upon your head.

 

That's what is going on here. When we set out to discuss Obama's perceived inexperience or Palin's... it does us no good to point out the other candidate's flaws as the other candidate still will have the same flaws after we're done waving our arms and pointing at the other one.

 

In regards to rule #1, Should I suggest that the invasion of Iraq was misguided it does not equate to a lack of support of our troops... and it does not mean that I am unAmerican to say that I don't want my country running around doing things like invading Iraq. Yet just by voicing this opinion the first thing that is voiced is that I am unpatriotic (untrue) that I don't support our troops (also untrue) and that I am unAmerican (again untrue). We must separate the emotional urge to lambaste people with these incorrect tags just because we disagree with the opinions they express.

 

Are there any other rules anyone else would like to propose?

[camibami]

I get frustrated with the "if you aren't for the war, your anti-American" schtick. I'm a veteran. My husband is on active duty. We have both fought to protect our freedoms- including the freedom to disagree with the administration's use of our service members in this particular instance. Otherwise, what good was/is our service, if our freedoms are so hollow and our country so fragile, that some opinions to the contrary can crush it?

 

Heck, I will vehemently defend the "no women in the military" folks' right to their opinion.

 

SO yeah- #1, I totally agree.

[pqr]

In regards to rule #2.

 

If I point out that you have a black widow spider on your forehead it would do you no good to look at me and say that I have one too. You would still have the problem of a poisonous arthropod upon your head.

 

 

In regards to rule #1, Should I suggest that the invasion of Iraq was misguided it does not equate to a lack of support of our troops... and it does not mean that I am unAmerican to say that I don't want my country running around doing things like invading Iraq. Yet just by voicing this opinion the first thing that is voiced is that I am unpatriotic (untrue) that I don't support our troops (also untrue) and that I am unAmerican (again untrue). We must separate the emotional urge to lambaste people with these incorrect tags just because we disagree with the opinions they express.

 

 

 

Phred, your black widow anology is correct. The issue is not that, but rather credibility. Let us say that Biden accused someone of plagarism.... well he might be correct, but he certainly should not be the one to make the accusation. In a similar manner a supporter of Obama should be very quiet about any perceived inexperience on the part of Palin.

 

I never argued that opposition to the war is unpatriotic, indeed I explicity stated that it was not necessarily so. The problem is that some who oppose the war are unpatriotic, do not support the troops and are unAmerican. Go to any anti-war demonstration in DC or California and you will see scores who fit this description (again not all demonstrators but many).

 

There used to be a phrase in government, and still is in Europe, of the "loyal opposition." Regardless of how we feel about the war we should still be patriots, Americans and support the troops and make comments that demonstrate this. Kerry and Murtha did not!

[Jennifer3141]

PGR, I would disagree with a couple of your points. IMO, anyone attending a demonstration of any kind in this country is as American as we get. Boston Tea Party, anyone? (Hey! It's a post about TEA).

 

I also don't quite understand the Obama/Palin inexperience argument. I heard McCain reference this in quite a few speeches about Obama prior to choosing Palin and I don't quite get it. Didn't he know who he was going to choose??

 

They are BOTH inexperienced in Washington politics. But experience hasn't exactly benefited this country in the past few years, and I include Clinton's presidency in there too.

 

I believe Clinton was a much better president from an international politics standpoint but he was a pig. Please don't preach feminism to me when you are enjoying oral sex from a CHILD. I don't care how old chronologically that woman grows to be, Monica Lewisnky was a child when this happened - as well as the daughter of a friend. It showed me how little true character he personally had.

 

And Bush? Well, as someone who has traveled outside the U.S a few times in the past 8 years it's embarressing to be an American out there sometimes. I cannot disagree with a current president's policies more.

 

Jen

[Phred]

Oh, and I'm also tired of the media being blamed for everything. But I'm not sure how to phrase that.

[Michele B]

Oh, and I'm also tired of the media being blamed for everything. But I'm not sure how to phrase that.

 

 

I am too, but for this reason - when the media accuses the media it just focuses back on the media and the power and influence of the media which is starting to sound pompous. The amount of navel gazing that I pay money to watch on news channels!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I am too, but for this reason - when the media accuses the media it just focuses back on the media and the power and influence of the media which is starting to sound pompous. The amount of navel gazing that I pay money to watch on news channels!

 

[whispers] C-Span. C-Span is your friend.

[pqr]

PGR, I would disagree with a couple of your points. IMO, anyone attending a demonstration of any kind in this country is as American as we get. Boston Tea Party, anyone? (Hey! It's a post about TEA).

 

 

Jen

 

Burning the US flag, flying the flag of the enemy, spitting on soldiers.....no that is not American.

 

Holding up a sign saying "Make love not war"....certainly.

 

Throwing perfectly good tea into the water.....what a terrible waste, how uncivilized. had it been coffee I would have been helping, but tea never!